Reflections on Connecticut Shooting

Today, a huge tragedy has occurred in Newtown, CT.  Reports are still coming in, but as of the time of my writing this, a 20 year old man went to an elementary school and shot and killed 26 people - 20 of whom were children.  He then proceeded to kill himself.  I'm not here to keep an updated report of what happened, but I want to post my thoughts on this event and hear from my readers what their thoughts are.

Truth is, I can't watch the coverage anymore. I've been following his since 10:30 this morning and while reports are still coming in, the repeated coverage of what happened is too much for me.  My heart goes out to the reporters who have to cover this - it can not be easy.

My Facebook timeline is filled with people asking "How could this happen?" or giving words of encouragement such as "Praying for all affected by the shooting."  These are the things on my heart as well.  I cannot imagine the pain parents who lose children undergo, and I pray I never have to learn.  My prayer is that God will comfort those affected and we can all strive to see His perfect will in this event.

Why do things like this happen?  That's a big question, and one I'm not qualified to answer.  But I've noticed an alarming trend in the last few years.  More and more incidents like this happen.  We can all recall the shooting in Columbine or Virginia Tech, or the massacre earlier this year in Aurora Colorado.  I find it interesting that these incidents have coincided with the rise of 24-hour news outlets.

That's one thing I think driving these shootings - the misconception of fame or infamy on the part of the shooters.  Anyone who has the capacity to murder dozens of people is clearly not in the right mind, but it may help us understand why these things happen if we analyze the people involved.

It's easy for us to just say the shooters are insane and be done with it, but I think we can point to some aspects of out society that encourage these devastating events.  I was recently listening to a radio program in which the hosts were discussing the psychology of psychopaths.  I found it interesting that the conclusion oftentimes is that psychopaths aren't idiots, rather they are pinpoint focused on whatever their goal is that the consequences of their actions elude them.  Perhaps, then, the shooters in these incidents are focused on an end other than killing innocent people.

I believe there is one possible source for this: attention.  Keep in mind I'm not a psychologist so this is just me thinking, but follow me on this.  Look at your Facebook, look at online news sources, turn your TV to the news.  What do you see?  This terrible shooting.  While most of us see this coverage as a proper way to report a tragedy, is it a stretch to think a psychopath could see this as one of the best ways to get millions of people talking about you?

I don't want to minimize the tragedy of this event or events like it.  What happened was incredibly horrific, and to some I may be coming off as insensitive.  My point in bringing this up is that I think we need to consider the ethics of how we cover these events.

I recently sat down with the news director of the local news station in Jackson, TN and he told me he had received a tip about a bomb threat downtown.  He decided not to air the story until police had confirmed it.  His reasoning was that he didn't want to give attention to a false story that would encourage more copycats to do the same.  I commended him for making this decision, if it turned out to be an authentic bomb threat, he likely would have lost the scoop on the story which would have cost him viewership and that costs him money in lost advertisement.

Maybe a brief explanation of the system is necessary here.  You see, news stations such as Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are all competing for viewership.  If your show gets more viewers, you can charge more from advertisers who want their commercials on your station.  Greater viewership equals more money, therefore a news director wants to air stories that get him eyes.

Certainly that is what is happening right now with the news coverage of the Connecticut shooting.  People are tuning into the radio, turning on their TVs, or logging on to the Internet to access the latest coverage - and the news stations are obliging by posting minute-by-minute updates.  There's a whole host of reasons as to why their doing this, most of which are innocent in nature, but one reason is that they want viewership.

I have to question if this is morally right.

It's a hard decision to make.  Like I said, every news outlet is covering this.  If you were the news director that opted not to cover it, you would likely lose your job the next morning because you lost out on the viewership.  But what is the societal cost of covering these events constantly - and I can guarantee you we'll be talking about this for the next few weeks.  What is the right way to cover this event?

I honestly don't have the answer.  I don't like that we cover the events the way we do and I truly believe it spawns copycats.  But I also believe it is the media's job to bring newsworthy events to the attention of the public.  I also think it is morally right for news outlets to make money by having viewers.

I just wanted to flesh out some of the things I've been thinking about from the perspective of a news person.  There are a lot of other factors that are involved in this story.  A person much smarter than me could discuss how the church should react to these situations, for example.

I hope this has been enlightening to you.  Again, my prayers go out to those affected by this tragedy.  Please, feel free to post your thoughts on the matter below.

Is the American Church a Bloom of Jellyfish?

My pastor wrote a blog post making a point: Christians have become jellyfish.  Think of the jellyfish.  In the sea, it is an elegant creature with structure and beauty.  Outside of the water it is an indistinguishable blob.  In this manner Christians can appear to be strong in their faith while attending church or in social circles of church-goers - their sea, if you will.  However when they are presented with opposing ideologies or their faith must be tested, they crumple due to a lack of theological or Biblical support.
In my own experience, I have to say this view of the church is more accurate than I care to admit and it is a strong conviction for me personally to analyze my own faith.  However I'll divert from those issues and make a claim of my own: Americans have made themselves jellyfish.
In areas of the world where religious tolerance is a myth and where the Gospel is not only unwelcome it is actively opposed we have seen a flourishing of Christianity and the church. The believers in these countries are on fire for Christ, reading their Bible often and with conviction. In many of the reports I hear or read these Christians are also firm in their beliefs and have a strong understanding of theology. They cannot afford to be jellyfish. If they were, they would be crushed. In keeping with the metaphor, these places are the dry, sandy beaches of this earth.
America is the ocean. I live in an area, specifically the South, where Christians are not ostracized or demeaned. It is typical conversation to ask a stranger where they go to church. Why? Because it is socially unacceptable not to go to church. I grew up in the Northern Plains and it is a different story there. Religion is a personal matter that doesn’t get discussed. Either way, we are not challenged on our beliefs. In those rare times when something noteworthy does occur where our beliefs are threatened, we all go out and buy a chicken sandwich to show our solidarity.
Americans are jellyfish because we have created a culture that promotes jellyfish behavior. We react to legislation that doesn’t agree with our ideals because that would actually force us to confront opposing ideologies. We stay with our church fellows because we have a comparable “code of ethics” that allow us to comfortably float through life.  I have it in my mind that perhaps some pressure would be a good thing for the church.  Perhaps good would come out of expansive civil liberties because it would force Christians to really stand by their beliefs and not be jellyfish.

Let my closing remarks be positive: Not every Christian is a jellyfish.  I have been blessed to be mentored by many men and women who are beacons of the Christian faith.  To those who refuse to be jellyfish and struggle with the meatier issues, I commend you. You are truly enduring the struggle of the race that is the Christian life. Keep up the hard work! Look to God for strength and know it is only through his grace that any good can be done. Always have as your goal that day when you will hear “well done, good and faithful servant."

Liberty and the Church

This week in church, my pastor called out Libertarians in the public sphere, in specific reference to sexual morality. He accurately described the libertarian policy as being, in general, live and let live. He then went on to say this pacifism allows for corruption to spread throughout our society and into our churches.

There are two problems with this. First, there is an oversimplification of the libertarian position and second, a misconception of the effects of this position.

Libertarians are by no means united in their policy. This is largely due to the fact that the libertarian party attracts people with many ideologies and puts them under one umbrella. That said, a common notion for libertarians concerning sexual behavior is that so long as it involves consenting adults and causes no harm or disruption to public peace, it is permissible. This goes for just about all of libertarian thought.

To provide specific examples, libertarians are fine with adults having sex inside or outside of marriage. with one partner or many, with whatever gender one prefers. Sex with animals, minors or without consent is illegal. Porn is legal to create, distribute, and consume so long as the participants in all areas are adults.


Now, many in the church would find much of what I just listed as a sin. They would say in committing homosexuality or consuming porn, we are rebelling against God and his commandments. And I, despite being a libertarian, agree completely with them. Therein lies the need for nuance in our public debate.


Allow me to explain: In America, we are granted a degree of freedom. This is not absolute, but it is expansive - particularly in the context of human history. Because of this freedom, there must be a level of tolerance. That is to say if one citizen does not believe the same principles I do, I must accept that. I am not given the authority to use force to coerce him from his position or arrest his right to express it. That does not mean I also have to believe it.

What my pastor, and people in the church who express similar thoughts, fail to see is that this is an opportunity for the church to have an impact. Because we are allowed to believe and freely express those beliefs, the church is given the chance to publicly minister to people. In America, the church gets the chance to convince people of following Christ and living a grace-filled life, putting a stop to the sins people are free to commit.

This is the American way, for each man to choose how he should conduct himself. The government is there to promote the welfare of the people, which means creating laws that would limit actions one citizen may perform to restrict the rights of another.

So I will go out and fight for the right to purchase porn and take to bed whomever will join you, and at the same time I will preach the wrongs of such actions. Because there is a difference between the freedom to perform an act and the moral correctness of doing it.

The church should be more active in spreading the Gospel and the morality it creates because it is based on God's truth. A republic cannot claim such moral ground if its citizens do not believe it. Therefore let the permanent freedoms of America stand and let the church come forth and renew a spirit of holiness in our country. Don't have the law of the land come from the holy book, but let the law of our hearts be written in the decrees of God.

Why You Should Care About Politics

It occurred to me after writing my last post that I have neglected a fundamental point that needs to be made.  I cannot expect you to care about the specifics of how a presidential race works if you do not care about politics in general.  So for today I am going to try and convince you the need for you to be interested in what our government does.

Note I use the word "need."  This is not hyperbole, rather a matter of fact if you want to see real change occur in our country.

Many Americans don't feel there needs to be a change in our government.  After all, they can go about their lives without much problem.  They are employed to some degree, have expendable income, and have leisure time in which to spend said income.  What could be bad about that?  Allow me to begin.

The State of Our Union

I'm going to throw some facts at you that are probably new to you.  I do this not to bore you with details, or frighten you with statistics.  I want to show there is a clear and present danger to your way of life.

The unemployment rate in America is currently 8.3%.  What that number really shows is the number of people looking for a job but not finding one.  It does not include the number of people who had a job, got laid off, searched for one but couldn't find one, and eventually stopped looking.

These people are now subsisting on what checks the government will give them and what savings they have left.  Including these people, unemployment figures shoot up to 15%.  To give you some context, at the height of the Great Depression, the unemployment rate was 25%.

The U.S. budget deficit, which is the debt of one fiscal year, is $1.4 trillion for 2011.  As of the writing of this post, the National Debt is at $15.4 trillion.  I should note there is debate on that last number.  If anything, it is too low a number.  Some economists have the number closer to $200 trillion by including promised funds that don't exist.  I will talk about how the government gets away with doing this in a later post, but if you want to do your own research, google "federal reserve banking system" and you should have a good start.

To give you an idea of what those numbers mean.  If you spread the national debt over every citizen, you individually owe over $49,000.

We have active war zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and are fighting a "War on Terror" in which our stated goal is to stop fighting when terrorists don't exist anymore.  Jon Stewart has a humorous take on that.

We have over 900 military outposts in over 130 nations across the globe, though number is unclear even to the Pentagon.  Yet we are no closer to ending our wars or reducing the spending associated with maintaining our national forces.

Everyday our rights are challenged by the government.  People have been fined for holding in-home Bible studies, a businessman went to jail for transporting lobster tails in the wrong packaging, lemonade stands have been shut down for violating city ordinances, police no longer need to go to a judge for a warrant, your home can be invaded by authorities without proof of crime.

If you have read any Orwell, Homland Security's new slogan "If you see something, say something" should ring a bell of "1984."

If you want a good look at all our legal problems in America, John Stossel did an excellent special on the matter.


Is There No Hope?

What has made headlines for weeks and continues to is President Obama's Health Care mandate that forces churches to provide medical assistance that goes against their religious beliefs.

This is not a story for you to read and rip out your hair in anger or hang your head in despair.  I wanted to share that with you because many Americans sadly don't know these things exist.  Hopefully I have sufficiently shown there is a problem with the status quo.

But that status quo does not need to be that way indefinitely.  We are a nation built on individualism, freedom, and revolution.  Our very inception as a country was in reaction to governmental tyranny.  It is the case today that another revolution needs to happen in order to change things.

I am not calling for you to arm yourself and storm Washington, nor do I propose you go all "V for Vendetta" and blow up the White House.  Not only are those ideas stupid, they would work against the change you want and just bunker the establishment down more.

What I am calling for you to do is to become politically active.
Now I know the phrase "politically active" scares a lot of people.  Many think that means they have to watch C-SPAN, read books about politics, and work on a campaign, but let me tell you that is dead wrong.  Don't misunderstand me, those are excellent things to do and I encourage them, but you don't have to do that to be effective.

Here are some things you can do to be politically active:

1. Consume the news

This can be as simple as reading a few stories online, watching a cable news show for a half hour, or reading the newspaper.  Bottom line, you can't make any decision without some information.

2. Talk to people about their political views

This is against everything we're taught growing up.  There are two things you never discuss: religion and politics.  Well, that hasn't been my experience and in talking to people not only have I learned more about politics, I have become more confident in my own beliefs.
When you talk to people about politics, just treat them like you would want to be treated.  Be respectful of what they have to say and honestly consider their viewpoints.  If your positions are right, they should be able to stand up to some critique.  And along the way, you might just learn something.

3. Attend community meetings


Nothing gives me less hope for our future than when I go to a local town hall meeting and no one is there.  Local issues matter and in the long run, they affect you more than anything else.  Dipping your toes into local politics is really easy to understand and you will find knowing about the policies that affect you make the political sphere more interesting.

4. Ask questions

If you find yourself in the company of people who are talking above your head politically, don't be afraid to ask what they are talking about.  If they have a caring bone in their body they will try to help you out.  But if they are less than helpful, don't give up on the whole affair.  There are people out there that genuinely want people to learn more about the political system.

5. Take your vote seriously

I know most people think voting in a general election is throwing their vote away, but let me tell you it is not.  If you take the time to do the aforementioned things you have more than just one vote.  I talk to dozens of people about why I believe what I believe and why I will vote for certain people and oddly enough, they tend to see where I am coming from and agree.  I effectively turn my one vote into many more by being politically active.  Don't be wishy-washy about the voting process.  If people took it more seriously, we wouldn't elect jokers into power.

I hope this has been instructional and a little inspirational.  Remember that politics is a part of our life, just like bills, dieting, or decision-making.  It affects our lives.  The question is, will you let politics control you by not participating, or will you actively go out and pursue making your life your own?

Comment below with your thoughts.  This part of life is all about communicating, so express your thoughts or opinions and get the revolution started.

An Introduction to This Year's Presidential Race

I spend a lot of my time talking about politics with friends, peers, and colleagues. One thing has become quite clear: people don't feel like the political process is approachable and they are therefore left quite befuddled about the whole affair.

This saddens me because my political ideology, which will become clear to you over time, hinges upon the need for an informed electorate. So my purpose with the next few stories in this blog will be to introduce politics in an easy-to-swallow manner that will hopefully leave you a little less confused.

I will start with a brief "setting of the stage" for the current presidential race.

In the beginning...

The presidential race this year is between an incumbent and a nominee for the opposing party.  Since President Obama is a Democrat, it is up to the Republican party to find a nominee to run against him.

Thus, the political campaign begins.

This cycle the candidates began throwing their name into the hat as early as March of 2011, though the last person to join has been Rick Perry, who waited until August.  The main contenders have been Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Gary Johnson, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.

Before you look at those names and cry out "I can never keep track of so many people!" Don't worry, you don't have to.

Since April there have been a series of debates, polls, and elections called "primaries" or "caucuses" that have whittled the field down to only four.  These are the real contenders and the ones we'll be focusing on in the future.  They are Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.  But all that is for later.  For now, just keep those names in the back of your head.

How the process works.

For the GOP nomination process, each state is given a certain number of delegates.  These delegates are assigned to a candidate based on a popular vote by the people of a state.  The delegates from each state then go to the Republican National Convention in August to vote for a nominee.  If one candidate gets a majority of the votes, he will become the nominee and run against the president.  The number of delegates needed to gain a majority is 1,144.  If one candidate cannot get a majority the convention will be "brokered." I'll get more into that in a later post.

There are two types of elections held at the state level to elect delegates as I said above called "primaries" or "caucuses."  Keep in mind each state holds its own election on different days and in different ways, so this next bit might get confusing.

Primaries:

Primaries are very similar to the general election (the election between the president and the opposing party nominee) in that a vote is taken by registered voters and the candidate with the most votes wins the state.  From here, there are two options which vary from state to state.

One way, which used to be the most common, is a winner-take-all scenario in which the candidate with the most votes is awarded all the delegates of that state.

Most states that will hold primaries this year will award delegates by percentage.  That is to say if one candidate wins 25% of the votes, he will be awarded 25% of the delegates.  If another candidate in the same state gets 35% of the votes, he will be awarded 35% of the delegates.

There is one other distinction in states that hold primaries and that is voter requirements.  Some states restrict voters to citizens who are registered with the party.  These are are called "closed primaries."  Other states that do not restrict voting by party affiliation hold what are called "open primaries."  Knowing the whether a state is a closed or open primary is critical to a campaign as it can drastically change the identity of the electorate.  But that is yet another topic for later.

Caucuses:

Caucuses are a different beast altogether.  The caucus process is not just a one-time vote to determine who gets what amount of delegates.  Rather it is a series of votes that show a general level of interest until it reaches a conclusion and awards delegates.  Allow me to get into some detail.

The night of a caucus, registered voters go to a meeting place to cast their vote.  But this is not like a primary where you punch a piece of paper in a curtained desk.  Rather you are put in a room with everyone from your precinct (local area).  Then there is time set aside for everyone to voice their opinion on who they believe would make the best candidate.  This can last as long as five minutes - if no one has anything to say - or it can last a few hours - if everyone has something to say.

Then a vote is called for and people write the candidate they want on a piece of paper and hand that in.  These are then tallied and candidates are awarded "precinct delegates" based on the vote total.  This is given by percentage, so if a candidate gets 50% of the vote, he can have 50% of the available precinct delegates.  Of course, this takes some time to happen and a candidate may not have a citizen willing to be a precinct delegate for them.  In this case, another citizen can volunteer to be a precinct delegate.

This whole process is then repeated again at the district level, except instead of having a general vote, only precinct delegates vote.  After the votes at this level are tallied, district delegates are then awarded based off percentage.

These state delegates then have another caucus at the state level in which the votes there are to elect delegates to the national convention.

In a later post, I will get into how this process can be politically expedient for some candidates, but for now I hope the process is a bit clearer.

In summary

I hope this has given you some insight into how things work with our political process and what to expect in the coming weeks.  I look forward to digging into the topics more.

If you have any comments, questions, or concerns, leave  a comment below.  The electoral process is all about communicating so feel free to start it here.